Residents of Woodbury Court apartments, shown above, were told to evacuate on Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2014. About 40 apartments had been without heat for two to four weeks, officials said. A temporary shelter was set up at Woodbury Mews senior living center for tenants who had no place to stay until more permanent housing could be arranged. (Staff Photo by Lori M. Nichols/South Jersey Times)

WOODBURY — The property owner of Woodbury Court Apartments settled on Thursday with residents who had filed lawsuits against the landlord stemming from the six-week evacuation of the Broad Street complex caused by a broken heating system.

The settlements followed a series of private discussions at Gloucester County Court that lasted all morning among officials from South Broad Street Associates, their attorney and the residents.

The agreements bar the plaintiffs — Steven Smith, Karen Whitbeck and Charles and Michelle White, all tenants of Woodbury Court — from discussing details of the settlement with anyone. However, all of them expressed plans to leave the apartment complex later this year.

“He made good (in the deal), because I wasn’t giving [in],” said Linda Smith, Steven Smith’s mother, to whom he had given his power of attorney.

The residents declined to comment.

South Broad Street Associates principal Norman Aaron, one of the partners in Woodbury Court’s Lakewood-based ownership group, attended the mediation sessions with property manager David Kalish.

Following the sessions, both stated they were pleased with how the settlements played out.

“We’re happy we were able to resolve everything and move forward,” said Kalish.

The Whites, Whitbeck and Smith all filed their suits against their landlord separately last February, while they were still lodged at the Gloucester City Quality Inn and efforts to repair the heat at Woodbury Court were ongoing.

Smith, who moved into Woodbury Court in October 2013, sought $1,500 in relief, including his security deposit, legal fees, increased utility bills caused by the landlord’s use of space heaters in place of a working boiler, and expenses incurred while staying at the motel. His lease expires at the end of August.

Whitbeck, who has lived at the complex since June 2003, had been seeking $3,000 — for her security deposit with interest, increased utility bills and food and transportation costs associated with being kept from her home. Her suit also includes complaints of mold in her apartment, adding that she has experienced health problems due to the condition of the complex.

Her lease ends at the end of March, and she is in the process of moving out, she said.

The Whites, who moved in on Dec. 1 of last year — less than one month before the heat shut down — had sued to break their lease with South Broad Street Associates.

They sought a $2,585 payout — a refund of their security deposit, two months rent and other costs. They stated they will be moving out later this year.

The counterclaim also argued that the tenants were “unjustly enriched” during the two-month evacuation.

For their part, Aaron and Kalish stated they had no intention of seeing residents kept away from their homes for as long as they were.

They each stated that when the boiler broke down in late December, they had received promises from the repair company, Sunburst Energy Systems, that the work would be completed in two weeks.

“We had a quote from the vendor with a promise that it would be fixed in two weeks,” said Aaron, as Kalish presented a digital copy of the contract with Sunburst giving the proposed timeline. “So we got the space heaters. That’s why we had the letter to the residents that said we expected it to be done by at least Jan. 22.”

Aaron and his partners at South Broad Street Associates took over Woodbury Court three years ago, while it had been “in a state of distress,” he said. According to Aaron, the property owners have installed a new rood and siding at the apartment complex, as well as a new security surveillance system.

Kalish and Aaron also refuted claims that officials from South Broad Street Associates have been difficult to reach.

“(Woodbury Court) is the only property we have where the residents have our cell phone numbers,” said Aaron. “We’ve been speaking with city officials; getting in touch with us has not been a problem.”